Colorado measure legalizing marijuana passes - <AUTHOR> http://www.coloradodaily.com/ci_21941918/nation-watches-colorados-marijuana-legalization-vote?source=most_viewed <comment><USER2> The most important part of this to me is that it generates a huge amount of precedent for the Latin American countries such as Uruguay and Guatemala that are considering legalization. The United States has used its global influence to push drug prohibition in other countries -- see for instance [http://www.cannabis- med.org/english/bulletin/ww_en_db_cannab...](http://www.cannabis- med.org/english/bulletin/ww_en_db_cannabis_artikel.php?id=218#2) \-- and with these victories -- even if they prove to be merely nominal -- the people of Latin America can see that prohibition is crumbling.

There are some people who like to portray marijuana as a first-world-luxury or sideshow political issue, but for people in the countries most affected by the drug war, it is anything but. This electoral victory may just show some serious positive influence in Mexico, where the realities of drug prohibition have inflicted a lot of suffering on a lot of innocent people, and that's the real victory here.

<comment><USER3> It certainly seems like this is the tipping point. Overall national support for decriminalization is at just over 50%. Several of the most populous states, such as California, have medical marijuana, decriminalization, or outright legalization statutes on the books or have just passed them. All of the west coast is pro legalization.

I imagine that once there is more social acceptance of marijuana out in the open and a longer track record of legalized marijuana without society crumbling more and more people will come around on the idea.

<comment><USER4> _"Several of the most populous states, such as California, have medical marijuana, decriminalization, or outright legalization statutes on the books or have just passed them. All of the west coast is pro legalization."_

There has actually been a lot of backward momentum in recent years, especially in the West. Californians rejected the full-decriminalization proposition a few years ago. The state is also cracking down on dispensaries, and/or allowing more and more DEA raids against dispensaries and state-sanctioned growers.

On the other side of the pond, even Amsterdam is starting to crack down on cannabis shops and decriminalization statutes.

By all accounts, the measure in CO was an abberration from recent trends. Maybe it will be a tipping point back in the pro-legalization direction. But it represents a shift in the prevailing tides of the last few years.

<comment><USER5> Simply not true.

Marijuana has been decriminalized in California since 2010. The proposition to _legalize_ the drug failed to pass. But I would hardly call this "backward momentum." It's not like there was a ton of incentive for Joe Pot to rally behind the move--cheap prescriptions, cheap dispensaries, and cheap penalties is keeping him plenty happy and stocked.

There was no such "cracking down" in Amsterdam. And I would hardly call what happened in the _Netherlands_ "cracking down." Many cities were weary of tourists entering the country simply to get high. So those cities combatted the "anti-social" tourist by requiring marijuana IDs at their coffeeshops. Citizens are free to use, but unless other countries adopt legalization laws in the Euro Zone some Dutch cities feel they must enforce these policies.

Will be interesting to see how Colorado/Washington deal with this, as they will likely encounter the same issue. If I lived in a border city like Vancouver, I'd be prepping for an influx in 2014.

<comment><USER4> _"Marijuana has been decriminalized in California since 2010."_

Specifically, the possession of less than 1 oz of marijuana has been decriminalized. Possession of a larger quantity, or sale or intent to distribute, has not been.

 _"The proposition to legalize the drug failed to pass."_

Prop 19 was not a full legalization; it was more like a major decriminalization. Possession of up to 1 oz would have been legalized, but many of the "gotcha" side-penalties (employers retain rights to drug screen and consider cannabis in the system a firable offense; legal penalties for possession above 1 oz; etc.) would have remained in place. I think it's fair to say that, had it passed, Prop 19 would have been a really big step toward legalization. But let's not split hairs.

 _"There was no such "cracking down" in Amsterdam."_

Not only has the sale of marijuana to tourists been outlawed, but "coffee shops" are being forced to reorganize as membership-only clubs, with caps on membership at around 1,000-1,500 per shop. There is also a growing movement, with vocal sponsors in the Dutch parliament, to ban "coffee shops" altogether.

 _"And I would hardly call what happened in the Netherlands "cracking down."_

Again, hair spliting over semantics here. The fact is that the Netherlands is moving in a more conservative direction w/r/t marijuana policy. However you want to define "cracking down," the present directionality is from X to Y, where X is a more liberal policy, and Y is a more restrictive policy.

I see your point that policy in the Netherlands is not necessarily germane to policy in the US. I think that's a fair one.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> As someone that doesn't smoke weed and never wants to. I'm happy that this got passed. I want Cartels to go out of business.

<comment><USER7> You, me, almost every economist, and a huge group of law enforcement professionals.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Alcohol prohibition in the United States underwent a similar process. New York legalized alcohol, while it was still prohibited by federal law. Eventually, enough states had stopped arresting and prosecuting people for alcohol that it was not feasible to continue federal prohibition.

Yes, the DEA may have a presence in Colorado and Washington, but the vast majority of law enforcement is handled by local authorities. When enough local authorities stop enforcing the federal prohibition of cannabis, the prohibition will come to an end.

<comment><USER9> What was the federal-state-local funding model like then? I know most municipalities continue to depend on federal funding, and I can see the US government using this (I recall a similar thing a few years ago around legal drinking ages)

<comment><USER10> The feds would need to justify a denial in funding based on some public health grounds ("to promote the general welfare" [1]). If this was brought to the courts, it could actually be a good opportunity to critically examine effects of legalization in a relatively rational, authoritative venue. The DEA's absurd Schedule I classification would need to be justified if it were to be imposed.

1\. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Dakota_v._Dole>

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> In unrelated news, doctors announced unprecedented drops in the number of 20-40 year olds suffering from migraine headaches, irritable bowel syndrome, depression and insomnia.

</comment><comment><USER12> Interestingly enough, Washington State's similar initiative, Initiative 502, passed as well tonight. It would seem momentum is growing around legalization. How the federal government via the DEA and DOJ ultimately handle these two victories for legalization proponents may be telling in regard to how close a national concensus is.

</comment><comment><USER13> I'm actually optimistic about civil liberties in this country. Didn't see that coming. Two states legalized marijuana and possibly four more states have approved gay marriage (btw, I rarely smoke and I'm not gay).

Let's keep this going.

<comment><USER14> Gotta wonder, now that Obama is a second term president and doesn't have to think about re-election, whether we could see some of this stuff start to happen at the federal level...

<comment><USER15> I'd hope so, but the other side is going to be just as obstructionist and useless as ever.

<comment><USER16> Nevermind that Obama has never expressed any interest in marijuana legalization and has even gone against his own promises in regards to prosecution. But feel free to keep projecting 'progressive values' onto him that aren't there.

<comment><USER15> >Nevermind that Obama has never expressed any interest in marijuana legalization

And up until very recently he never expressed any interest in marriage equality either. Your point?

<comment><USER16> There's a difference between 'not expressing interest' and 'actively pursuing the opposing agenda' that I hope is apparent.

2012 Democratic Platform:

"We must help state, local, territorial, and tribal law enforcement work together to combat and prevent drug crime and drug and alcohol abuse, which are blights on our communities. We have increased funding for the Byrne Justice Assistance Grant Program over the last four years, and we will continue to expand the use of drug courts. We support the rights of victims to be respected, heard, and compensated."

RTFM.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Provided this actually happens (ie: it doesn't get sabotaged by the DEA), I expect Colorado's tourist numbers and college applications will compete for the largest increase next year.

Not a weed smoker here, but good to see some sanity emerging.

<comment><USER18> Not a smoker either, but discussed living in CO or WA is we go back to the U.S. I just want to live among open minded people.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> Prohibition is clearly stupid and has caused very great harm. Other people have mentioned the death and destruction in Mexico as one example. I am strongly pro legalisation.

But the links between cannabis and mental ill health remain unclear. We don't know how many people have mental illness caused by cannabis; we don't know how many people with an underlying illness have that illness triggered by cannabis; we don't know how many people with an existing illness are self- medicating with cannabis. (Legalisation will help. Researchers now have the ability to do better science.)

Mental health treatment in America is sub-optimal. I am concerned that legalisation and the lack of good health care is a bad combination. But this is just a gentle concern - I am still strongly pro legalisation.

<comment><USER20> The purpose of prohibition was to destroy local, independant breweries and distillers, so that large conglomerates would be able to dominate the very lucrative alcohol industry once it was re-legalized.

<comment><USER21> This has absolutely no basis in fact.

<comment><USER20> Look at who the owners of breweries and distilleries were pre-Prohibition, and after. Before - small businesses, essentially micro-brewers, spread out across the country. After - Anheuser-Busch and a few others. QED.

<comment><USER22> Similarly, the purpose of World War 2 was to destroy other industrialized nations so that the United States could dominate the very lucrative world economy once peace was reattained.

Just look at who the world powers were pre-World War, and after.

<comment><USER20> Not the only purpose to be sure, however it was explicitly mentioned as a rationale for staying out of the European theater completely.

The idea was to allow Germany and Russia to slug it out, completely exhausting both countries.

See for example the views of Charles Lindbergh (search for Russia) : <http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/lindbergh/sfeature/fallen.html>

America's strength is why the USD became the reserve currency of the world. Note that the Bretton Woods conference was held in 1944, before the war ended: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bretton_Woods_system>

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> As an outsider, I'm not sure I understand what this means. Can someone explain how this will work in practice? in the sense that this doesn't over-rule federal laws, and presumably federal agencies (like the DEA) will still operate in Colorado?

<comment><USER24> "Can someone explain how this will work in practice?"

Read the law.

"presumably federal agencies (like the DEA) will still operate in Colorado?"

The feds have said that they aren't going to target individuals who follow state law. As to whether they prosecute growers and dispensaries, that is currently left up to each local DA. There are some rough guidelines the feds have put out saying that if you follow certain rules (as a grower or dispensary owner) then you won't be arrested, but it's up to each DA as to whether or not to honor those guidelines.

The federal government has already accepted that marijuana is going to become legal, but they're trying to make it happen in an orderly way. Insiders generally predict federal legalization (or at least rescheduling) in 3-5 years. That strikes me as optimistic, but at the same time I think the latest it will happen in 2024, which is when various demographic, political, economic, and technological factors will be most favorably aligned.

<comment><USER25> > As to whether they prosecute growers and dispensaries, that is currently > left up to each local DA.

This isn't correct to my knowledge; as an issue of Federal law, that would be the purview of the US Attorney assigned to the region, not the local DA. They get their orders from the US Attorney General.

A local DA could decline to prosecute under state law, but the US Attorney could still pursue federal charges -- this happens fairly regularly (just in general, not even just with regard to drugs or cannabis specifically).

<comment><USER24> "as an issue of Federal law, that would be the purview of the US Attorney assigned to the region"

That's what I meant by local.

"They get their orders from the US Attorney General."

Not in this case. The US Attorney General is letting them each do whatever they want as they see fit. That's why there are lots of raids in some parts of California, and almost none in others.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> Living in Colorado, I voted yes on Amendment 64. This was mostly because I think the hemp and 'recreation' industries will pull in a lot of tax revenue (of which, the first $40 million will be put directly into a public schools fund for the state), as well as potential job growth.

I'm not sure about the rest of the state, but Fort Collins and surrounding cities banned dispensaries within the city limits. Will this still be the case despite 64? Or will stores that sell marijuana products no longer be considered 'dispensaries'?

It will be interesting to see if the federal government will even let a hemp based industry get started up at all.

<comment><USER25> The city-level restrictions seem fair. Without some sort of "escape valve" to let places that are predominately opposed opt out, I suspect you'd get a lot of backlash and you might see a reversal. Better to let some cities lead and others sit the first round out ... although they'll probably be losing some valuable first-mover tourist dollar advantages in doing so.

<comment><USER27> Not at the same "level", but. Many things should not have "local" opt outs. Such as opting out of providing abortions, health care, desgregation. Access to drugs is one of these things. One job of government is to protect the rights of the minority against the majority. (and no I don't believe in "negative" rights such as we have the right not to have mary jane sold in our town.)

OTOH, I can accept this as a necessary and temporary compromise to get the decriminalization ball rolling.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> This is all well and good, but at this point there's no guarantee that the federal government won't slap it down. My limited understanding of the law suggests there are two avenues for the federal government to do so:

I. - Under the Supremacy Clause "the U.S. Constitution, Federal Statutes, and U.S. Treaties [are] "the supreme law of the land."...and mandates that all state judges must follow federal law when a conflict arises between federal law and either the state constitution or state law of any state." [1]

Whitehouse.gov lists Department of Justice Guidelines for (medical) marijuana laws, stating that "persons who are in the business of cultivating, selling, or distributing marijuana, and those who knowingly facilitate such activities, are in violation of Federal law, and are subject to Federal enforcement action, including potential prosecution."[2]

II. - Under the Interstate Commerce Clause, Congress has the power "to regulate Commerce...among the several States"[3]

A quick example of how the ICC could be applied: If a farmer in Colorado buys fertilizer from a company in a marijuana-illegal state for the purpose of growing and selling marijuana they have engaged in interstate commerce and may be subject to the ICC.

I just hope that the federal government stays hands-off long enough to see what kind of net change in state government cash this can make.

[1]<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacy_Clause>

[2][http://www.whitehouse.gov/ondcp/federal-laws-pertaining- to-m...](http://www.whitehouse.gov/ondcp/federal-laws-pertaining-to-marijuana)

[3]<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commerce_Clause>

<comment><USER29> The Supreme Court ruled on this a few years ago. They said that Congress can regulate home-grown marijuana (even though they are only constitutionally allowed to regulate interstate commerce) because the presence of homegrown marijuana affects supply/demand in the interstate market for it:

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich>

Baffling logic, but I wouldn't be optimistic for the federal authorities to be too foregiving here.

<comment><USER30> They ruled the same thing about wheat:

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn>

It seems obvious to me that the authors of the interstate commerce clause didn't intend it to grant the authority to regulate anything and everything just because an interstate market for it exists, but the courts are generally quite hesitant to invalidate Federal laws.

Practically speaking, most drug enforcement happens at the state level. This means that individual users and small sellers in states that legalized marijuana probably won't have many issues, but you won't see ABC Liquor and Cannabis opening its doors any time soon.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> Good news! Let farmers grow it and people at home. Sell it, tax it, allow people to buy it in a safe environment instead from dealers that try to get people hooked on other crap. This makes weed less of a gateway drug and more a greatway drug.

</comment><comment><USER32> At the time of posting, it also looks like Washington is going to pass their marijuana ballot too.

[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/06/marijuana- legalizat...](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/06/marijuana-legalization- results_n_2074168.html)

</comment><comment><USER33> Didn't think I'd ever see a .gov page officially referencing: a) a ballot initiative, b) marijuana and c) Cheetos & Goldfish, but here you go: [http://www.colorado.gov/cs/Satellite?c=Page&childpagenam...](http://www.colorado.gov/cs/Satellite?c=Page&childpagename=GovHickenlooper%2FCBONLayout&cid=1251633686228&pagename=CBONWrapper)

</comment><comment> at-fates-hands I think they are plenty of good arguments for legalizing marijuana - however, things like this tend to make me think twice about it:

"In California alone, nearly 1,000 deaths and injuries each year are blamed directly on drugged drivers, according to CHP data, and law enforcement puts much of the blame on the rapid growth of medical marijuana use in the last decade. Fatalities in crashes where drugs were the primary cause and alcohol was not involved jumped 55% over the 10 years ending in 2009."

[http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jul/02/nation/la-na-pot- dri...](http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jul/02/nation/la-na-pot- drivers-20110703)

<comment><USER34> >nearly 1,000 deaths and injuries each year

That number is meaningless unless we know what counts as "injuries".

Furthermore "drugged driving" is anytime someone is in an accident and blood tests show evidence of Marijuana use, even in cases where the driver was no longer impaired.

>Fatalities in crashes where drugs were the primary cause and alcohol was not involved jumped 55% over the 10 years ending in 2009.

How often were they testing for Marijuana after car accidents in 1999 compared to 2009, and what level of impairment is the cutoff for a "primary cause."

That statistic is useless without knowing if an increased number of "drugged driving" offenses was offset by a corresponding decreased number of alcohol impaired offenses.

<comment><USER35> If alcohol testing were like marijuana testing, almost _every_ accident would be counted as a DUI.

Because of the underlying chemistry involved, most statistics involving marijuana-related incidents vastly _overstate_ instances of drugged driving, use, etc. This includes not just DUIs, but also numbers like the DAWN reports.

Unlike almost any other drug, marijuana stays detectable in the system for 2 weeks on a test (for urine tests, which are the most common - in general, anywhere from 2 days to 3 months, depending on the type of test + usage habits).

Since the _effects_ of the drug only last for ~2-4 hours, that means that "testing positive" for marijuana is useless at indicating whether the person is actually under the influence, or just happened to use the drug at some point within the last two weeks.

Contrast to most drugs - alcohol, for example, can only be detected for about as long as the person is impaired.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> Are there any other instances of this kind of issue to compare this against and see how it's going to play out. I'm trying to think of other instances where something was illegal at the federal level, and states have made that legal?

<comment><USER37> worked well for portugal : [http://www.businessinsider.com/portugal-drug- policy-decrimin...](http://www.businessinsider.com/portugal-drug-policy- decriminalization-works-2012-7)

<comment><USER38> We haven't made it legal, just decriminalized consumption.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> _The amendment will allow those 21 and older to purchase up to one ounce of the drug at specially regulated retail stores._

I'm glad this passed for the several reasons highlighted in other comments, but doesn't that mean every one of these stores will have to track who buys weed and how much in order to not sell more than one ounce to the same person?

And wouldn't that be very tempting for insurance companies or even corporations to get their hands on these records?

<comment><USER40> I'm guessing -- and this is purely a guess (ie I haven't read the law) -- that the 1oz limit is likely per transaction / per visit. Just like when a supermarket says "limit 5 per customer" for an item on sale. If you REALLY want more you can go back later/tomorrow/etc.

This was likely put in the language of the law to emphasize that this is for personal use and not for commercial distribution.

</comment></comment><comment><USER41> I am having a hard time understanding the reasons for support here in HN so please help me out. A common reason cited is that it prevents violent crime outside of the US but is that a 'good' reason to support it? Suppose that it is a more powerful drug that is very hazardous to a person exist. Doesn't that speaks to the same situation? Should we legalize that as well?

I can't articulate it well but shouldn't we make the decision to legalize it based on whether it is good for this country? I'm unfortunate that it created a lot of bad side effects elsewhere but that won't ever stop.

With that said, I am for it because I think drugs shouldn't be treated like criminals. They don't 'hurt' anybody but themselves so it's along the lines of alcohol addiction, etc...

<comment><USER42>
        A common reason cited is that it prevents violent crime outside of
        the US but is that a 'good' reason to support it?

I am struggling to find any potential answer to this which doesn't boil down to "yes".

        I can't articulate it well but shouldn't we make the decision to legalize
        it based on whether it is good for this country?

Why not both? The national harms done by prohibition are very, very real.

        I'm unfortunate that it created a lot of bad side effects elsewhere but that won't ever stop.

Legalisation will cut off a major funding source for those "bad side effects." It might not stop them completely, but it ought to make a dent.

<comment><USER41> What I'm saying is that the same people who creates those violent crimes selling marijuana is going to create violent crimes selling other more dangerous drugs. Should we then legalize that as well so that those people will stop making those drugs and focus on another more dangerous drug?

<comment><USER14> 1) Yes, we should carefully consider every aspect of prohibition and analyse how we can set policy to bring levels of harm down to an absolute minimum. If this includes decrim of everything, we shouldn't balk at it but follow best available evidence.

This is not easy. For example, is it acceptable to decriminalise and prescribe heroin for addicts if the results are (hypothetically): \- increase in the number of heroin addicts by 50% due to easier availability \- decrease in 95% of deaths due to heroin and heroin-related HIV due to clean needles, known doses, no impurities etc \- eliminate 95% of the acquisitive crime by these addicts as nobody steals for a fix any more

I would say yes. But it's a hard sell at the political level, particularly when western society seems to regard addiction as a moral failure and a sin in need of punishment. I find it particularly perverse that when you explain to people that providing a fix and (hopefully) a slow, easy, managed detox program for these people is not only more humane but likely to save insane amounts of tax money AND cut violent crime, some folks are still against it because 'they broke the law!'

2) If the popular and less harmful drugs (weed, E/X , probably a few others like LSD) are legalised and made available then the available customer base and cash for the criminal gangs shrinks massively. Nobody expects them to go home to mommy and start an honest career but if you cut the cashflow, you cut the ability of the gangs to function, and you cut the number of people coming in because it's less attractive.

Surely you can't think that cutting off a lucrative revenue stream from the cartels is a bad thing?

3) Drugs really aren't as dangerous as you've been told. Read a real book on them sometime. I recommend 'Drugs: Without the hot air' by Professor David Nutt, one of the UK's foremost scientists in this area.

<comment><USER43> > Drugs really aren't as dangerous as you've been told.

I guess no one here watches the TV show "Intervention". Pity. That TV show is a better education on the real impact of hardcore drugs than any book you might read. This Colorado vote is a relatively minor issue, really. But, it does indicate that we're heading down a slippery slope. Since those running the meth clinics say that only one person in 50 can stay clean for a year, there might come a day when half of society are hardcore drug addicts. But, we will never face that kind of zombie apocalypse because the life expectancy for a meth addict is only seven years from the moment they get hooked. Let the down-voting commence!

<comment><USER14> I'd also like to know how you think prohibition is helping these people.

<comment><USER44> The connection you're looking for is probably that generally where prohibition has been lifted, consumption has increased.

<comment><USER14> Like in Portugal?

Where decriminalisation has been a harm-reducing success?

<comment><USER44> Turn it down a notch.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER45> This is a pretty big deal. It will be interesting to see how the federal government handles this.

<comment><USER46> The same way they do now. They'll do a bust every couple of months to keep their directors happy.

</comment></comment><comment><USER47> I'am curious how health insurace companies will react. Would they charge more from people who take marijuana? Would it be legal for them to investigate if someone is cannabies smoker?

</comment><comment><USER48> Legalization this is not. It's decriminalization under state law, but that doesn't mean that federal criminal laws go away. The Supreme Court is content to have both laws exist in force, IE, it didn't suggest in Gonzalez vs. Raich that medical marijuana laws are illegal exercises by the state, merely that they don't remove existing federal laws.

</comment><comment><USER49> unfortunately it just failed in Oregon:

[http://www.oregonlive.com/politics/index.ssf/2012/11/state_m...](http://www.oregonlive.com/politics/index.ssf/2012/11/state_measure_80_legalization.html#incart_river_default)

<comment><USER24> This was inevitable. The Oregon law was based on the tomato model, which is only 1 / 5th as popular as the tax and regulate like alcohol model:

[http://blog.norml.org/2012/10/24/59-of-all-americans-want- ma...](http://blog.norml.org/2012/10/24/59-of-all-americans-want-marijuana-to- be-legalized/)

If the law gets rewritten and makes it onto the ballot again in four years then it will pass easily.

<comment><USER50> Perfect evidence that you need to work step-by-step with this sort of social change, rather than simply declaring, "I want it all, and I want it now".

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER51> Can't wait to see the impact analysis from <http://www.marijuanamajority.com/>

Perry Rosenstein++

</comment><comment><USER52> ...and im trying to profiteer <http://www.facebook.com/HerbTours>

<comment><USER53> Yep, there is some business opportunities here.

</comment></comment><comment><USER54> I am sure the Feds are going to slap it down.

<comment><USER55> The federal government has no jurisdiction. They technically don't have the authority to make a substance illegal at the federal level anyway -- they get away with it by levying taxes on banned substances that can't actually be paid.

Regardless of that, if the DEA starts arresting people who are not violating state law after the electorate in CO has spoken in such clear terms, libertarians are going to go apeshit. That's the last thing that the Obama administration needs, and he's already made it very clear that marijuana is not high (ha) on his list of concerns.

<comment><USER56> The feds don't have the authority to criminalize a substance? News to me, perhaps you should brush up on Supreme court decisions since the 1940's: Start with Wickard v. Filburn then move on to Gonzales v. Raich

The expansive rulings on the Commerce Clause has opened up the ability of congress to legislate just about anything, provided they can tie it loosely to the act affecting commerce in some minuscule way.

<comment><USER55> IANAL, and I'm not going to pretend (like yourself) that I can interpret Supreme Court opinions by "brushing up" on them.

Could you point me to an instance in which the cases you cited were used as precedence in support of federal jurisdiction over controlled substances within state lines? Or did you just want me to be impressed that you can cite Supreme Court cases involving the commerce clause?

<comment><USER35> On a separate note, the federal government prevents states from exercising their constitutional right to lower the drinking age to 18, by blackmailing them with the threat of losing highway funding. There's nothing stopping them from doing that with marijuana.

<comment><USER57> This was an amendment to the Colorado Constitution by the voters of the state. The Colorado state legislators can't override this like they could a statutory ballot measure.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER58> I wonder what the increase in tourism and population is going to look like</comment>


Richard Feynman was born on this day 100 years ago - <AUTHOR> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Feynman?ref=reddit <comment><USER2> Feynman was such an interesting character!

Many will write about his many significant contributions to our understanding. And his antics.

I want to say I appreciate his infectious love of learning and exploring. Almost anyone benefits from just knowing something about how he was as a person.

Go forth boldly. Work for it. Laugh along the way. Share, receive, grow, play, love.

Beautiful person.</comment>


Ira Glass on creativity's dark stage - <AUTHOR> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-hidvElQ0xE <comment><USER2> On the whole I agree, people who desire to be good at something usually know when they're not good. While they're working on their skill and sharpening their mental tools, they are likely to get frustrated and quit. Ira is saying, don't quit, understand that this 'dark stage' is the process, and work through it.

</comment><comment><USER3> Summary?

<comment><USER4> The essence of this 5:20 video is to say that creative artists should be patient with themselves during that phase of their creative life when their _taste_ exceeds ability to create: So they cannot then create something that meets their own standards. Amazingly, 395 reviewers of the youtube video gave it an average of 5 stars. Whatever. Ira _is_ a great story teller. But this is _not_ a story: it's a blog post. [This picture is worth less than a 1000-word summary. (or 100 word summary) ] Maybe the other parts (#1 & #2) are more worth.

<comment> tsetse-fly Who said it was a story?

This is a 4-part interview with Ira Glass _on_ storytelling. I thought it was pretty insightful.</comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: What are you doing for home automation? - <AUTHOR> As most developers are, I am very interested in automating as much of my life as I can, especially if it saves me money.  I have been messing with a mix of tech for home automation, but I haven't fully committed to anything really. "Smart" bulbs, outlets, some thermostats, music/sound, cameras...
Like the recent story[0], I would like to find some FOSS software for a hub and get some reliable hardware that doesn't depend on a company or its servers somewhere in the cloud.
What have you built, bought, installed, or use in your home?
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15521743 <comment><USER2> waiting for alexa to arrive for voice apps, insteon for wall socket control, some philips hue color lights, and control via [https://home- assistant.io/](https://home-assistant.io/) plus a couple ptz cameras behind [https://zoneminder.com/](https://zoneminder.com/) all in lxc containers on a small linux box.</comment>


Ask HN: Will we be using Unix derived OS's for the next 50 years? - <AUTHOR> <comment><USER2> Depend is you're talking about the user level part or kernel level part.

Android is a "new" OS on the user level, even if you have a unix kernel. And I'd claim that android's userlevel stuff is too different from unix that you can't claim it's unix derived.

I'm pretty sure I'll be doing my development in eclipse on an android based workstation in a not too distant future.

For a new type of kernel. there has to be a real upside to switch. For the world to really take the time to make the effort to use something different, i.e. a new kernel based on different principles, you really need to have one of the following to happen:

* you need to come up with something that a kernel can do, that is a MUST HAVE and can't be implemented in a unix kernel. (in 40 years this was not happened)

* You get better performance. (again hard to see how you're effectivly compete with the sheer amount of engineering effort done in something like linux)

* You can get by with a MUCH simpler kernel. (As linux is a modular design which is stripable, it's hard to see how you can compete)

* we're going to start building hardware on a different HW architecture that demand a different programming paradigm.

The last part is not as far-fetched as you might think. There is a growing gap between how we programmer perceive how machines work (and a unix kernel do provide a user space process with a virtual machine of the type programmer expect) and how HW now actually work. But as a lot of people has tried to come up with something else, and failed, I'm not holding my breath,

TL;DR There is no foreseeable benefit to users in a new NON unix kernel.

</comment><comment><USER3> You know, I sure hope not.

Good points:

* applications run in a sandbox (preemptive multitasking/protected memory)

* interprocess communication is well implemented (copy on write, pipes, stdin/stdout/stderr)

* everything is a file (so many data structures and APIs become superfluous once you realize this)

* atomicity is for the most part robust which allows scaling (mutexes, semaphores, file locking)

* open nature of code lends itself to better security, size and performance

Bad points:

* Hierarchical filesystems are a dead end (the future is all about metadata, hashes, diffs and relationships)

* Too much emphasis on brevity, while size becomes less important over time (acronyms, abbreviations, regular expressions, bash, perl, etc)

* Human-oriented concepts, ironically, don't work well for the use cases humans want (permissions, process priority, executable bit)

* Basing everything on source code instead of binaries needlessly increases everyone's workload

* Dependency hell

Honestly I could come up with 10 times as many examples as these. Especially for the bad points, seriously, it's worth keeping an open mind about what could be possible if we thought about how the world is moving towards treating data as essentially infinite. I think computers of the future will work more like how Google does things with map reduce and Go. It just kills me every time I can't find something on my hard drive when I KNOW so much about it, what I was thinking at the time I made it, and not so much its name or contents. Or when I lose hours, or even days, trying to make the simplest command work in the shell, or set up a config file (for BIND etc). I think UNIX reached a pinnacle with Mac OS X but now it will enter a long period of slow decline as multiprocessing and higher level languages begin to replace all of the things that we used to do by hand. Especially with regard to how we develop software today, so much of it (makefiles, even compiled code), while not necessarily UNIX-centric, is going to go the way of the dodo. I find anymore that the vast majority of my time, perhaps as high as 90%, goes to learning curves, getting anything to work at all, and fumbling in the dark without being able to see where a problem comes from. The operating systems of the future, whatever form they take, are going to solve these problems in ways that I think would be difficult with a command prompt mindset.

<comment><USER4> In terms of IPC, I like Singularity's model a lot. You don't do any (slow) hardware boxing, only software-enforced isolation, so you're already in the same address space, which means sending data between apps is a lot faster.

<comment><USER4> Actually come to think of it, I like everything in the Singularity paper. We should do way more software-based enforcement and utilize compile-time and install-time verification to do things like avoid DLL-hell, etc.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Ah, I ranted before about how Copland was killed in favor of Unix-based NeXT technologies. For example Classic Mac OS used Pascal strings which was more secure than C strings. What is funny is that Copland tried to move the Mac Toolbox into kernel mode even though Copland never intended to preemptively multitask GUI apps. I read they once was able to run the "Blue Box" on Copland's NuKernel which would have been a good starting point.

</comment><comment><USER6> Reminds me of this old HN post:

      Ask HN: Will we be using Lisp derived languages for the next 50 years?
      64 points by jm 50 years ago | flag | 46 comments

</comment><comment><USER7> Yes, except that I think production services are more likely to migrate to a thin containerized layer directly over a hypervisor something like what Docker/LXC provide in UNIX. We already have JVM and Erlang VM and even LISP implementations that bypass the OS and I think there will be even more of that type of thing.

UNIX is still a very useful OS for general use and for developers so I don't see it going away for a century or two.

<comment><USER8> 2.. hundred.. years. You're bananas to think computing will even be recognisable as we know it by then.

<comment><USER9> My guess is that, while that will be true, if you dig down deep enough through whatever interface we're using in 2214 you'll find csh.

And support for vt100.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Likely some evolution of them, unless something profoundly better changes the game.</comment>


Ask HN: Any events in the NYC area over the next two weeks? - <AUTHOR>

I'll be in the NYC area until the 18th of March. While I'm up here, I'm hoping to hit up a programmer/developer/hacker event if I can.
I'm mostly a hobbyist, interested in an array of programming languages: Python, Ruby, Haskell, Scala, Javascript, Lua, Lisp, or anything interesting, really. I'm not necessarily looking for work, but I wouldn't be against finding something, either.
So... does anyone know if there is anything interesting going on? <comment><USER2> The NYC clojure meetup will be the 16th. You can signup on meetup.com. The functional programmers group is this coming Tuesday but already full. There is also the LispNYC meeting that can also be found on meetup is also this coming tuesday.

In general, meetup is a great way to find users groups is nyc.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thank you for this! I had no idea where to start. meetup.com seems to be a great resource, exactly what I needed. I'm going to try to attend a few of these, starting with the hack and tell tomorrow, if I can make it!

<comment><USER2> There is also a presentation on Redline Smalltalk at the nyc smalltalk users group on the 17th. <http://www.nycsmalltalk.org/>

I'm pimping that one in particular as I'm part of the team building it.</comment></comment></comment>


Politician Promise Fulfillment Meter - <AUTHOR> https://www.trudeaumetre.ca/ <comment><AUTHOR> Every democracy should have one.

The author credits the original idea to Egypt and links a MorsiMetre in the 'about' link: [http://morsimeter.com/en](http://morsimeter.com/en) (there is an Arabic version too).</comment>


Attempting (Failed) Verification of the Wright Signature - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/patio11/wrightverification <comment><USER3> _The non-experts did not ask to see things which would be hard for non-Satoshi to provide -- they were at the mercy of the charlatan (paging James Randi, James Randi to the courtesy phone please).

I'm mystified as to how this got past Andresen, though._

I think Randi would be the first to tell us that the skills required to detect a good conman are quite different from skills in technical fields.

[http://www.livescience.com/9066-magician-scientists- assume-i...](http://www.livescience.com/9066-magician-scientists-assume- infallibility.html)

I bet Andresen simply got tricked, and I think he should not feel to ashamed about it (although he will) -- most of us would have fallen for it.

<comment><USER4> I agree, but look at what Andresen said:

[https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/4hfyyo/gavin_can_you_p...](https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/4hfyyo/gavin_can_you_please_detail_all_parts_of_the/d2plygg)

>Craig signed a message that I chose ("Gavin's favorite number is eleven. CSW" if I recall correctly) using the private key from block number 1.

>That signature was copied on to a clean usb stick I brought with me to London, and then validated on a brand-new laptop with a freshly downloaded copy of electrum.

>I was not allowed to keep the message or laptop (fear it would leak before Official Announcement).

It's quite suspect he wouldn't be allowed to keep the message, and that no public message and signature has been produced. But assuming he's not lying, this doesn't really seem like a scenario where he could be easily tricked.

<comment><USER5> My best guess is that Gavin has been duped by a sleight of hand (like a magician would use) by Craig.

My best guess, based on what I've read so far, is this:

\- Gavin supplied his own text for the message.

\- Craig faked running "sha256sum" on this message on his own laptop. The real "sha256sum" program could have been overwritten with a fake program that always output the same "hash". This is the "magic trick": the "hash" is attacker-controlled, and doesn't actually correspond to Gavin's message. Rather, the hash corresponds to an old message on the block chain - see, e.g., [https://gist.github.com/ryancdotorg/893815f426f181d838c1b44a...](https://gist.github.com/ryancdotorg/893815f426f181d838c1b44aa187f05a)

\- Then from there, presto. The signature validates (and can be validated on Gavin's clean laptop) - because it's a real Satoshi signature, from the public blockchain years ago. But what it validates _against_ is a "fake" hash - <USER2> Gavin thinks corresponds to his own message, but actually doesn't.

Easy to see how that would be a very, very convincing demonstration, after some social engineering. But all sleight of hand.

This is (I believe) why Craig has all this blurb up on [https://dankaminsky.com/2016/05/02/validating-satoshi-or- not...](https://dankaminsky.com/2016/05/02/validating-satoshi-or-not/) \- it's to hide the trick, which is that he doesn't give us the file "Spartre". He supplies only a (presumably faked) screenshot of sha256sum against this file. Making you type in the hash by hand is misdirection, so you don't realise that you don't have the original file.

<comment><USER6> Thank you. The part I couldn't understand is how Gavin could verify the signature without retaining the message. But your explanation (with the hash) makes perfect sense.

Wright supplied all the inputs. Amazing.

<comment><USER5> If my hunch is right, I feel quite sorry for Gavin for having being duped. It would have been very convincing. We're not all James Randi!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I am enjoying the spectacle and irony of the crypto-currency media being "hacked" by someone who barely understands the basics of the very thing that underpins the system itself.

 _One of the very few things that Bitcoin meaningfully has accomplished as an ecosystem is a world-readable repository of reasonably-well-attested-to-keys._

Yeah no shit.

<comment><USER8> I don't think _anyone_ in the 'crypto-currency media' believes that this guy is Satoshi. The mainstream media that covers bitcoin seems to have been conned, though.

<comment><USER9> These variations on a "we found Satoshi for reals this time" story seems to be on a ~6 month cycle. It happens, it gets debunked, it fades, it happens again.

<comment><USER10> It's striking that they got burned by the same guy _again_ though. Craig Wright came through as a fake Satoshi a bit over a year ago: [http://hackingdistributed.com/2015/12/10/how-to-spot- satoshi...](http://hackingdistributed.com/2015/12/10/how-to-spot-satoshi/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> This is hard to believe but Craig Wright might actually have posted the hack in his blog announcement...

From one of the reply to Gavinandressen:

[https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/4hfyyo/gavin_can_you_p...](https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/4hfyyo/gavin_can_you_please_detail_all_parts_of_the/d2poy67)

<comment><USER12> Why would you be so obvious as to misspell "signature", rather than replace one of the letters with an identical-looking high-Unicode alternative?

<comment><USER13> Because you didn't know such things existed?

I'm inclined to think this whole thing is a con, but I'm unsure if bash variable is a part of it, or just a mistake. But if it is a con, then we can't assume the person perpetrating it has the same level of technical mastery as we do.

<comment><USER12> Given how easy it would be to prove that it's _not_ a con, I'm surprised how anyone is buying any of this, really.

All Wright has to do is sign today's headlines with the genesis key and publish the signature, and that's it. No other speculation or "convincing of a core developer" needed.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> >Part of that time was spent on a careful cryptographic verification of messages signed with keys that only Satoshi should possess. But _even before I witnessed the keys signed_ and then verified on a clean computer that could not have been tampered with, I was reasonably certain I was sitting next to the Father of Bitcoin.

[http://gavinandresen.ninja/satoshi](http://gavinandresen.ninja/satoshi)

Probably a bit of confirmation bias there.

</comment><comment><USER14> From TFA:

 _You 'll have to visually compare this against Wright's screenshots, but it matches. If this sounds fishy to you, well, you're right. Also fishy: making people hand-edit hex values to verify trivial parts of this evidence chain._

To say that this is "fishy" is an understatement. To me it's proof enough that the man is a total fraud.

</comment><comment><USER15> I really don't understand how these media outlets were fooled for so long when it took Redditors familiar with the subject ~6 hours to see right through it.</comment>


Mini DisplayPort to HDMI cables face recall over licensing issues - <AUTHOR> http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/11/07/08/mini_displayport_to_hdmi_cables_face_recall_over_licensing_issues.html

<comment><USER2> I hope they do get recalled.

If only everyone recognized the reason for this licensing debacle and revolted over it.

Damn patents.</comment>


Okay, Okay, Maybe Netflix Is a Problem for Cable After All - <AUTHOR> http://allthingsd.com/20110615/ok-ok-maybe-netflix-is-a-problem-for-cable-after-all/

<comment><USER2> What's crazy is that Comcast is in a great postion to go head-to-head Netflix. They are positioned to go vertical in a way that Netflix can't even dream of.

* They have a relationship with a huge base of existing customers. They're one of the few players with a subscriber base close to Netflix (who just passed Comcast).

* They have a large network based on good technology. Sure, it's not fiber, but it's a lot better than what most of the RBOCs are sitting on, and Netflix has zero.

* As part of NBC, they have established relationships with all the major content providers.

* They own the distribution channel from content library, transport, and the end-user equipment.

The problem, from my experience, with Xfinity is that the "experience" sucks. Their cable box is a slow, buggy pile of crap. Browsing content on my cable box is only marginally better than the craptastic PPV movie systems in a cheap hotel. The new Xfinity apps for my iOS devices are a huge step up, but I'm not convinced that using my iOS device as a remote for my television is where I want to be. This is what the experience is like:

* Pick up my iPad and browser for "OnDemand" content * Initiate playback from my iPad * Switch to the Comcast remote to play/pause, ffwd/rwnd * Experience huge lag in response to my control inputs from any of these devices

I've measured it, and it can take up to three full seconds for my cable box to respond to inputs. Three seconds is an eternity when you compare it to the Netflix app running on my PS3. Not to mention, with Netflix, I don't have to keep my iPad around. I can just use the PS3 remote to browse, select, play, and ffwd/rwnd content. And it's responsive.

Comcast has only themselves to blame for this situation. They're sitting on all the right pieces, and no individual component is a huge weakness if you believe that going vertical is the right approach.

Such a shame.

<comment><USER3> In my experience, Comcast has one thing that Netflix doesn't: customers that hate them.

1\. Comcast is expensive. My rates have nearly doubled, but I haven't seen any change in my service or their offerings.

2\. Comcast wants you to install their hardware because they "switched to digital." Fine, but I don't need or want another appliance between me and my TV. I already have several (Wii, Xbox, etc).

3\. Charging you extra to see HD. Here's a tip: if I can see HD versions of the stations that I'm already paying for just by running the tuning auto-scan, then I feel ripped off. Esp. because old 4:3 format looks terrible on my wide screen.

I agree with your sentiment that Comcast has only themselves to blame. They're trying to squeeze more and more money out of their consumers and offering little in response. Which is why I dropped them like a hot rock and got netflix and hulu accounts.

<comment><USER2> That's what blows my mind. There are very few _good_ business reasons for Comcast to be in the position they're in. "Customers hate them" is a symptom of the underlying disease: chronic-head-up-the-ass. They have the technology and relationships to make huge headway on every one of the items you complained about. The only problem not directly addressable by technology is price, but I think there's a solution to that as well.

Apple does very well selling hardware (at a premium) that is typically 6-8 months (often more) behind the rest of the market. When they upgrade their lineup, prices typically don't change much, but the hardware is upgraded. How do they get away with this? Because they have something consumers want. They provide a great experience.

What's the lesson? Consumers will pay what you ask, and they won't complain (much), provided you give them what they want. Use your technology for good! Provide awesome services that consumers want, and no, running down a check list saying, "But we have streaming movies 'On Demand™'" isn't what we want. We want an experience that makes us happy we bought your service. Get with it!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I pay Comcast ~$70/month for internet. I can get DSL cheaper, but only at lower performance tiers. It's decent service, I'm not too upset.

I pay Netflix $8/month.

Comcast may experience some creative destruction, but even with their physical infrastructure they really ought to be able to survive at those rates. I'm "sorry" they're losing their content business, but it's not as if they didn't have years of opportunity to figure out what to do about it.

<comment><USER5> How have your rates been the past some months? With no change in service, mine have gone up 24% since late last year.

Cry my a river, Comcast.

<comment><USER4> Because they haven't gone up, _yet_. They just called us a few days ago to announce that they want to upgrade my speed from 12-ish to 20-ish, and they will send us a digital cable box for basic digital, for 4 cents more a month for a year (no typo, four-hundredths of a dollar). Presumably at the end of that year, the rates don't go down.

I assume, though I don't know, that they are doing this to finally get the analog cable channels off their network (which I approve of, they are a shocking waste of bandwidth even at SD), and are complying with their legal obligation to continue to broadcast the local stations to me even though I am only an Internet customer by "giving" me the digital cable box. I broadly approve of this. I am hoping they're trying to "hook" me back on digital cable and that I can get back to my original rates (or a reasonable facsimile thereof) by turning the box back in. Or... if necessary, switching to some of that DSL. (Or threatening to switch to DSL.)

<comment><USER5> I have the analog TV service -- because the final, discounted price is almost the same as the price for Internet only -- and I can say they've done a lousy job of providing that negotiated, legislated analog support. Noise, severe (upstream, I'm assuming, as the last leg is analog) digital compression artifacts, channels literally "freezing" for hours or a day before someone "unsticks" them. Flickering letterboxing.

They also eliminated two additional PBS stations that had been in the basic cable lineup here, prior to the digital conversion. The channels I most valued.

(At least I'm really subscribing for Internet service. But those depending upon the promised basic analog support are really being screwed.)

All this seems to be a combination of spending no money on the analog support, and pressuring customers to "upgrade".

It's interesting that you received the offer you describe. I've had nothing similar.

Technological trade-offs aside, I'm upset with them because, in my view, they have not adhered to the agreement they entered. And no regulatory body is making any effort to correct this.

And just how have my rates increased 24% in the span of six or eight months, without those same regulators asking Comcast WTF?

Although it's been some years, I've had my DSL experience with SBC/AT&T. And, amazingly, they managed to be yet worse.

(Three service calls -- each a half-day off work for me -- until they actually showed. Exterior, bare, twisted wire connections left dangling on the side of the building. Regular service drops. Phone support that finally admitted: We're outsourced; we can't even see the status of the tickets we file when you call.)

Sorry, this is way too long -- I'm venting.

At least the Comcast Internet service is fairly reliable. They just make you pay through the nose for it, and push similar tactics with their TV service.

Where I am, now, there is no good choice. (Not even a competitor's DSL, as -- last I checked -- AT&T refused to extend support the extra mile to my community of several thousand.

I have NO sympathy for either of these company's "laments". Based on personal experience, I believe everything they say is bullsh-t.

(Final tidbit: About a decade ago, SBC/AT&T received upwards of $1 billion in tax breaks and other incentives in Illinois in return for "universal service", then lobbied the legislature to change the law and let them out of the obligations they'd assumed in return for this largesse.)

Sorry for turning this into a long rant. But the lesson I've learned is to _not believe a word they say_.

I only do business with these companies because I simply have no other choice. A position a lot of other people are also in. Monopoly or duopoly, the resulting behavior is straight out of the textbook.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I'm in the same boat as many of you, paying the cable company for internet access and relying on Netflix and Hulu for content (I subscribe to Hulu plus, though I confess I was largely looking for some way, any way, to give Hulu some of my money for the service they provide me).

My question, though, for others like me...how many of you have more than two adults and/or teenagers in the house? Right now it's just me and my wife and my young daughter. I remember growing up, though...in my family, we had multiple TVs in the house, with everybody often watching something different. Cable TV provides the bandwidth for that, but I was thinking it may be awhile before cable internet provides enough bandwidth for that use case.

Of course, it could be that as this generation of new parents gets used to not having a cable bill, families may grow used to watching TV together or watching it less overall. That might be the greatest contribution that TV- over-Internet provides us, in the long run.

<comment><USER7> Cable Internet already provides more than enough bandwidth. There are been many times where my room mate and I are both streaming content from NetFlix, and our third room mate is watching Hulu in the living room.

No issues with lag, or slow downs or anything like that.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Between Hulu (free) & Netflix ($8/mo), the only bill I pay to cable is for internet.

It seems to me that Hulu is way worse for cable companies than Netflix, as Hulu lets me watch current shows nearly immediately. If I didn't have Hulu, I might get basic cable for current shows.

<comment><USER9> If I could get decent french-language programming, I would also give up Dish. As it is, TV5 Monde is only available on Comcast (in some areas) and Dish (everywhere).

Anyone know of good streaming options for French language programming?

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> I know it's not a representative sample, but all but 1 of my friends have cancelled cable in favor of Netflix + Hulu. So I'm continually surprised to hear that cable subscriptions aren't falling.

What I really don't get is why HBO won't sell to me directly. I think that would be the last nail in $100/month cable bills.

"Can I get HBO On Demand if I don't have HBO? No. HBO On Demand is exclusively for HBO subscribers." from <http://www.hboondemand.com/faq.html#faq7>

<comment><USER11> HBO Go is godsend. I can watch the entire series of any HBO show from the pilot to the series finale and watch new episodes of awesome shows like Game of Thrones on a computer or on my iPad. The second Showtime copies them and offers this direct, subscription based, with clients on the Roku and the like, it'll be over for cable.

<comment><USER12> Are you saying that you can get HBO Go without cable? From what I can see of the signup, I need to pick my cable provider to sign up (something I don't have). I'd be willing to pay for HBO, but I'm not willing to pay for other cable as netflix satisfies my needs there.

I've got a Roku too if there's some integration there that I'm missing.

<comment><USER13> Unfortunately, HBO is owned by...Time Warner Inc, and it seems their executives like to talk about the two-year old TV Everywhere initiative[1], but continue to fail to ship it.

An interesting quotation from that blog post, "Bewkes, who helped spearhead the TV Everywhere initiative with Comcast two years ago, reiterated the need for the industry to "take every channel on television and put all of it on demand [...]"

[1]<http://gigaom.com/video/cable-show-panel/>

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Count me in the 40% who has cut their cable bill (I.e. no more premium channels) since buying an Apple TV.

</comment><comment><USER14> I've been without cable TV for over 10 years and don't miss it at all. Just another industry with lazy incumbents whose lunch is being eaten by a competitor that is giving customers what they've been asking for for decades.

Now I wish someone would just break up the sports broadcasting cartel. ESPN has way too much power to dictate how its customers can view its contents. What the hell is an ESPN 360 compatible cable internet provider? One that is willing to pay their tariff?

<comment><USER15> I am surprised that ESPN (with all their control) haven't adopted a better online presence.

I would pay them directly $10 a month to access their sports and TV shows. Can't be doing better through the cable contracts...

<comment><USER16> ESPN makes more then 1 Billion Dollars a year in cable carriage fees. As stated in another response they get between $2-5 per cable subscriber from these deals. This is _all_ subs including many that don't view their channel.

No, $10 a month ala carte is not a better option for them. ESPN _likes_ their position in cable, its hugely profitable.

<comment><USER17> ESPN makes more the $4 billion from those fees. And then they get to show advertisments as well.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Comacast was charging me 4 or 5 times more than Netflix per month and still, twenty minutes of every hour consisted of advertising. That is, a third of my watching time was spent muting the television and twiddling my thumbs.

Pretty much Comcast can go jump in a lake as far as I'm concerned. Of course, now that Comcast, through MSNBC, provides both service AND content, I'm sure they'll put a stop to Netflix as soon as possible. Thanks, FCC!

</comment><comment><USER19> I've just spent three months trying cable and have decided to cancel it. At this point one thing would entice me back: channels a la carte. I like watching sports sometimes and occasionally like watching a Discovery Channel- type show in Spanish and seeing how much I can understand, but aside from those two things, I don't get much out of it that I couldn't get from Hulu.

<comment><USER20> The problem with channels a la carte is if you have two competitors, one of whom bundles content and the other of whom competes a la carte, there is a strong tendency for them to get into a ruinous price war.

Since people already do bundle, that makes getting into an a la carte variation very dangerous.

See <http://www.dtc.umn.edu/~odlyzko/doc/price.war.ps> for details.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> I got rid of my cable service about a year ago and haven't regretted it. It seems to me there is a lot of room for cable companies to easily improve their service, yet IMO it remains consistently poor.

\- On demand selections are limited, and the interface is usually pretty clunky. If I have a DVR, I have to remember in advance to record something, rather than being able to just grab it after the fact.

\- You need to have a physical box, which either arrives outdated or quickly becomes outdated, and they never replace it.

\- It costs $60-$70/month for decent cable service where I live, versus $8/month for Netflix. Combine that with Hulu and free on-demand streaming from major TV networks, and it's a great bargain.

The _only_ thing I miss about having cable is being able to channel surf when I'm bored. Honestly, I am probably a more productive human being without wasting my time doing that, so I'm not too disappointed.

</comment><comment><USER22> I'm not going to shed a tear. Cable companies had to know their business plans weren't going to work forever when pay-per-view movie rates started exceeding the cost of renting a DVD, or in some cases actually buying the DVD.

Now... about those pesky 5000% profit margin usage-based-billing rates...

</comment><comment><USER23> I have a smart Sony BD player that lets me watch Crackle, Hulu Plus, Netflix and half a dozen other things. It upgrades automatically and adds new services every few months. (I believe most of these are available on the PS3 as well). I was on this crazy cable plan that had all the bells and whistles but I actually only watched 5 channels. When cable lets me subscribe on a channel by channel basis I _might_ switch back. The only thing I missed is live sports but networks are broadcasting live web streams as well, so 'cut the cord' = 'more money in my pocket'.

Also, something to note was that I dint have TiVo or DVR and so could _almost_ never watch shows on TV. Hulu for me is _free DVR_ (unless they dont have my show which is rare).

</comment><comment><USER24> The Internet and Cable companies here in Canada are already trying to circumvent the issue and bring back the sheep by capping regular internet plans in the same way you see with data plans on phones--Most companies allot 100gb (and then you pay huge sums if you go over) which isn't very much in today's world, so it's gotten to the point where I had to cancel my netflix (its inferior in Canada anyways) because by watching it regularly, I far exceeded my internet cap. It's gotten to the point where excessive streaming/downloading for entertainment is about on par with traditional cable in terms of costs.

<comment><USER25> Instead of cancelling Netflix, why not stick it to the people giving you prohibitive caps and switch to an independent 3rd party ISP. I switched from Rogers to Teksavvy (and later Teksavvy Cable) and have loved every second of it.

The best part is that the customer service and tech support people don't treat you like an idiot and don't just read their script and transfer you around when you say something not on their script. (Not bitter.)

<comment><USER24> Do you know what? I really appreciate that, and I might just do that. Thanks a lot. :)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> Between OTA HDTV, Netflix, Redbox, and Hulu, I've been without cable TV for quite a few years now. Actually, I've been without a TV completely for the last year and frankly it's quite enjoyable. Just not having that TV as the focal point of the house is really nice, especially since I have a 1 year old to be a dad to.

Considering that digital cable is $50+ a month(not including internet), that's enough to buy new laptop or HDTV or iPad every year. Cable won't die, but I wouldn't be surprised if they are forced to eventually morph all of their offerings into a digital package like Netflix where you get Streaming TV + Internet for say $50. Right now I'm paying $35 for cable internet and $8 for Netflix, and a few dollars here and there for Redbox rentals, so $50 a month is just about right for what it _should_ cost for cable companies to do that.

<comment><USER27> "Just not having that TV as the focal point of the house is really nice"

This. I've always envied friends who didn't have a TV in their living room. It totally changes the character of the home. It's somewhat perverted that TV literally dictates how people setup their floorplans.

I keep on toying with getting rid of the TV (currently use a 42" lcd hooked up to an HTPC w/ no cable) but spend at least 4-5 hours per week w/ the girlfriend on the couch watching netflix, daily show, TED, etc. If I may ask how does your family consume content? Have something like a 27" iMac in the den?

<comment><USER28> > _If I may ask how does your family consume content?_

If I may ask, what makes you assume they do? I haven't followed any shows since BSG ended, and my wife watches 2-4 hours a week of stuff she probably wouldn't miss all that much. Our daughter watches an hour of kid stuff (Dora, etc.) every day (1/2 hour during breakfast, another 1/2 hour while I cook dinner), but generally prefers to spend her time playing with my wife and I. If I were to sell the TV on craigslist tomorrow there would probably be some whining for a week or three, but eventually we'd settle down into a new routine and probably never miss it.

When I "consume content," it generally comes sandwiched between a couple of paper or cardboard covers.

<comment><USER29> >If I may ask, what makes you assume they do?

I'm guessing the part where they said that they use Netflix and Redbox is probably a good indicator.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> I've gone cable free for two years thanks largely in part to Netflix (and Xbox 360 for my ESPN3 stream). Cable was one thing that should have been getting cheaper over the years, but instead kept getting more expensive. Like Blockbuster before it, I don't think anyone will be too sorry for Comcast and the rest of their lot.

</comment><comment><USER31> My wife and I have been experimenting with reducing the content that we buy from Directv. Directv is a great service, great content, but we watch so many streaming Netflix movies that Directv is less relevant. That said, we are scaling back on what we purchase from Directv, but definitely not canceling it.

</comment><comment><USER32> We cut the cable three years ago. And in our community, no cable means no TV. It's probably not the much cheaper, to be honest. The big difference for us has been the cutting random channel-surfing and our family's exposure to loud, mentally corrosive cable TV advertising.

</comment><comment><USER33> The day I can get NFL Sunday Ticket streaming to a set-top box (with a decent user experience, not a computer-hooked-to-a-TV one) is the day I'm finished with normal TV service.

</comment><comment><USER34> Wait, it's 2011 and people are still surprised by the threat that Netflix poses? Jesus, when is anyone in any media industry going to get, anything?

<comment><AUTHOR> I don't think that the author was expressing his astonishment with the fact that Netflix is threatening cable. He was just reporting the findings of a new study which show hard evidence. In fact, he states that "this jibes with both common sense and other anecdotal evidence we've seen.", so he's clearly not surprised.

</comment></comment><comment><USER35> Instead of dropping cable for Netflix: why not drop them all together and get an active hobby? We spend enough time indoors already in my opinion.</comment>


Court to consider whether car dealers can sue to keep Tesla out of Mass - <AUTHOR> http://www.universalhub.com/2014/court-consider-whether-car-dealers-can-sue-keep

<comment><USER2> I will be watching this closely, and I am going to start writing to my state representatives in case the court sides in the dealers' favor. This law should be clarified or repealed.</comment>